I am a molecular biologist, in general, like biology, astrophysics, and much more! It's a hobby, but I can find the necessary literature and now I can recognize manipulation. Here, for example, "black holes" of general relativity and the "Black Star Laplace" - it was interesting to me. I realized that the so-called "Black holes "of general relativity - is a clever manipulation, which deliberately ignored the kinetic energy! It turns out that the approach to the singularity of the density requires an infinite energy! And because there is nowhere to take it, then this state is not achievable. So there is only "Black Star Laplace".

Try to look for Miller-Urey experiment and more alike experiments which concluded origin of life .

Do I take it to mean that you consider the Miller-Urey experiments and other like ones to have answered the question as to how life originated, or did you mean that these experiments demonstrated the opposite?

I am not sure what his view actually is regarding the results, I await his clarification.However his experiment and indeed succeeding ones did show one clearly noticeable feature.

Robert Shapiro had a comment on this in the edge event I have referred to before.He recounts a meeting he had with Stanley Miller.

At one point I went and spoke to the now, unfortunately, late Stanley Miller, and asked him about the circumstances of his famous Miller-Urey experiment — the one with the electric lightning and amino acids were formed — and he handed me a biographical piece he himself had written to something called the Transactions of the Copernican Society or something like that, and he described how in building his apparatus he was concerned with questions of safety, because if you take a flask and you mix it with methane and hydrogen and ammonia, the most likely result is BOOM, with flying glass in all directions, which is definitely not publishable.With regard to safety, he built a certain apparatus, let it run for a number of days, and at the end of the days he looked at what he'd found and he found the class of chemicals called hydrocarbon — the stuff that makes up the lakes on Titan but no amino acids whatsoever. And he looked at this and he said, this isn't interesting. And he threw it out. He redesigned the equipment: he said, I was over-cautious. This is not likely to explode. He interchanged the spark and the condenser and he re-ran the experiment, and this time he got amino acids and not hydrocarbons, and he said, Ah ha! And he published.Thus we have the famous Miller-Urey experiment showing the inevitability ofamino acids on the primitive Earth.

And of course the apparatus itself has no resemblance whatsoever to the primitive Earth. One of the popular magazines said that if his apparatus had been left on for a million years, something like the first living creature might have crawled out of it. And I say, if he'd left his apparatus on for a million years, he would have run up one hell of an electric bill. But nothing further would have happened because the spark was in the atmosphere and he'd used up all of the chemicals with carbon in the atmosphere, and the amino acids, which aren't volatile — they don't fly, so to speak — were safely ensconced in the water solution, and the water solution was a collection of non-volatile compounds, well, and the volatile compounds ended up in — so when an experiment goes wrong in organic chemistry you get a black gook and you reach for the potassium bichromate and sulfuric acid — mixed together it's a called cleaning solution — that cleans out about 90 percent of the failed organic experiments that are ever run.You use that and you can get rid of the tars in about 80 to 90 percent of hiscarbon, this stuff that had unfortunately flown again and again until it got zapped and ended up as tars on the wall of his flask. Well, this was the best prebiotic experiment ever run, because at least he started with components that hypothetically could have been on the early Earth.Since then, so-called prebiotic chemistry, which is of course falsely named,because we have no reason to believe that what they're doing would ever lead to life — I just call it 'investigator influenced abiotic organic chemistry' — has fallen into the same trap. ……

….The point is, you would take whatever mess prebiotic chemistry gives you and you would concentrate that mess so it's relevant to RNA or the origin of life — it's all in the eye of the beholder. And almost all of prebiotic chemistry is like this; they take chemicals of their own selection.

The point that Shapiro is making, and he is an evolutionary scientist, is this.Investigators design their own atmosphere that has nothing to do with the reality of prebiotic conditions.They prepare their designs to try to achieve the result they are seeking. That is the start and end of it.

With these atmospheres that are cooked up in a lab, has any serious thought been given as to how that particular atmosphere could have naturally developed? Of course not, because no theory can account for it.

Their atmospheres are specifically designed to produce the result they wish.

In the genesis narrative that is precisely what is stated. The atmosphere was specifically designed to accommodate the life that was to come.

Of course a materialist view says you can’t have an outside agency designing because science can only deal with natural processes.The irony that seems to escape this type of thinking is that the very processes they are denying, they actually use to prove – what? That the prebiotic atmosphere can only come about by design.

We have rocks, made up of granite. Granite consists of different amounts of Quartz (SiO2) Feldspar of which there are three kinds (KAlSi2O2, CaAlSi2O2, and NaAl2Si2O2), and Mica (every Mica molecule contains 12 Oxygen atoms (O2).Limestone and Marble contain copious amounts of oxygen atoms as well.So there is plenty of oxygen atoms in rocks.

Water contains oxygen (H2O)

Now stellar evolution tells us that accretion was the process that formed the Galaxies Stars and planets. The process consists of the collision of microscopic dust (the elements) and then sticking together. Let’s assume this is correct.

So the hypothesis is that all these, rich in Oxygen compounds, formed the rocks and water but without a remainder O2 for the atmosphere. What is the physics or chemistry that can confirm this? There is none.

I though you are an engineer, but obviously not in chemistry, right? So you have no education in related fields whatsoever, but you will complain all the time.Nevermind, the point is, that oxygen is quite reactive and thus it reacts with the other elements and forms other compounds. If you knew anything about chemistry, you would know, that getting oxygen from SiO2 is really hard task.Furthermore, there are other planets where there is oxygen in some compounds, but it is not in the atmosphere as O2 and this is no speculation. So why should we assume that the early Earth was different?

Where did I say that oxygen formed from Quartz or Feldspar? It didn’t and that is my argument. Please read what I am writing.

The oxygen must have been around in the compounds that formed the rocks according to the theory of accretion.For it not to be around after the rocks formed must mean that all the oxygen was used up with no remainder, for any atmosphere. That was what I said.

Now is that realistic?

Because that is the theory of a pre-biotic atmosphere.

Therefore the question is where did the oxygen come from?

You say

Well, from the organisms, obviously.

So a simple question nowWhat organisms are you referring to.

Now think before you respond, as I have no desire to see you digging a bigger hole for yourself.

I am finding it very difficult to understand why you appear to not appreciate the obvious. Maybe it is a language problem

So may I try again

In my post that you refer to I stated

Now stellar evolution tells us that accretion was the process that formed the Galaxies Stars and planets. The process consists of the collision of microscopic dust (the elements) and then sticking together. Let’s assume this is correct.

So the hypothesis is that all these, rich in Oxygen compounds, formed the rocks and water but without a remainder O2 for the atmosphere. What is the physics or chemistry that can confirm this? There is none.So why is it so emphatically stated that the early earth had no oxygen?

If the accretion process from material that was rich in O2 formed the rocks and water all of which are themselves rich in oxygen, why is it claimed that the atmosphere lacked oxygen?What is the physics or chemistry that justifies this claim? I said there is none.

So for my education as I am obviously unacquainted with chemistry, can you explain a physical or chemical process controlling accretion that does, on the one hand make use of the oxygen rich material to produce the rocks and water, but on the other not leave any free O2.

You need to explain this if you are to state that there was no O2 in the prebiotic atmosphere, and even more bizarrely that “organisms” produced the O2.

I am saying quite clearly, with my limited understanding of chemistry, that if this process of accretion which so clearly assumes a material mass rich in O2 is correct, then this very same process would have had some remaining O2 as a constituent part of the atmosphere.

the thing is, that the materials such as sillicates are so stable, that they do not release oxygen, similarly other elements react quickly with oxygen to form oxycompounds. These are mostly stable, definitely more than free oxygen.

By the organisms, I mean of course the evolved bacteria. There are plenty of articles, which track the level of oxygen in the past. I'm sure, you will find some, since you're so great with the resources

scottie Oxygen could get into the atmosphere once, 4 billion years ago when crossing the plume from the central galactic hyper-astroid Laplace in a place where centrifugal force is born spiral arm of the Galaxy. Nitrogen, by the way, too, like gold, and many other things! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14827624